The United States is officially disputing the claim by a special U.N.
panel that the crisis in Darfur does not amount to "genocide." The
177-page report from a five-member U.N. commission charged with
investigating allegations of genocide in Sudan made these
conclusions:

1. There was a massacre of as many as 400,000 mostly Christian
southern Sudanese people.

2. Under international law, this constitutes serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian laws.

3. This cannot be considered "genocide."

According to the United Nations, there are over 1.6
million "internally displaced persons" in Darfur and more than
200,000 "refugees" who have moved into neighboring Chad.

The United Nations also says that there has been large-scale
destruction of villages throughout the three states of Darfur. "But
there is no evidence of genocide." (It should be noted that Khartoum
expressed "relief" at the U.N.´s determination and promised to "bring
the guilty to justice.")

The Genocide Treaty of 1948 defines "genocide" as the "intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group."

Sudan is essentially divided along religious lines, and is ruled from
the Islamic north. The south is almost entirely Christian, with a few
animists or other non-Muslims.

The Islamic north is not only murdering wholesale non-Muslims in the
south, it is offering Christians the following choice  renounce
Jesus as Lord and convert to Islam or be put to death by the sword.
Tens of thousands have been slaughtered as a result.

It takes some pretty fancy diplomatic footwork to make a case that
what is happening in Sudan isn´t "genocide." Unlike Bill Clinton´s
wrangling over the meaning of the word "is," genocide has a clear,
legal definition. Under the Genocide Treaty, forced conversion of an
identifiable religious group is "genocide." For Sudanese Muslims to
be proven innocent of genocide by the United Nations, it would have
to prove that Muslims are not attempting to destroy the Sudanese
Christians in the face of voluminous evidence.

Sudanese Vice President Ali Taha reaffirmed Islam´s policy in Sudan´s
government last October. He brazenly declared, "The jihad is our
way."

The State Department´s Richard Boucher told reporters in reaction to
the report, "We stand by the conclusion that we reached that genocide
had been occurring in Darfur ... Nothing has happened to change those
conclusions. We stand by those conclusions."

In 1994, the United Nations was similarly reluctant to apply the
word "genocide" in Rwanda. In that case, members of the rival tribe
of Hutus massacred almost a million members of the Rwandan Tutsi
tribe in 100 days of bloodlust.

After 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed in the crossfire, the
United Nations "bravely" withdrew and let the bloodletting continue,
while Rwanda´s representative, at the time a member of the Security
Council, argued that claims of genocide were "exaggerated."

In 2004, Kofi Annan designated April 7 as the "International Day of
Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda" for which he called for  I´m
not making this up  a moment of silence. Annan declared, "let us, by
what we do in one single minute, send a message  a message of
remorse for the past, resolve to prevent such a tragedy from ever
happening again  and let´s make it resound for years to come."

Years to come? The United Nations didn´t even make it until the
following April before letting another "non-genocide" genocide happen
again.

The United Nations proves its irrelevancy once again by refusing to
use the magic word, "genocide." And why is the United Nations
reluctant? That one is easy to answer. This would require the United
Nations to immediately take action to stop the slaughter. And it is
not surprising that most of the people being slaughtered are
Christians. The United Nations can easily get way with inaction to
rescue Christians because fellow Christians do very little to express
the outrage that is due. By contrast, Muslims howl over the slightest
insult to fellow Muslims and spawn terrorists to accent their
protest. This gets a great deal of the U.N.´s attention.

The United Nations has proven itself to be a place where the
perpetrators of international crimes who violate the U.N. laws argue
endlessly about how they haven´t broken them. The United Nations is
simply a debating society for tyrants and human-rights violators to
protest their innocence. In the meantime, the United Nations
continues to take no enforcing action whatsoever to stop violations
of its declarations. It has failed to enforce the most basic reason
for which it was created  to prevent "genocide."

Let me say that again. The United Nations was created for the express
purpose of preventing from ever happening again the genocide that
took place during World War II.